DEPARTMENT    OF    LABOR 

OFFICE  OF  THE  SECRETARY. 


DISPOSITION 


OF  THE 


E     PUBLIC  LANDS  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 


WITH  PARTICULAR  REFERENCE  TO 


WAGE-EARNING  LABOR 


By  LEIFUR  MAGNUSSON 


">^-' "  '    ^     .«  '>'-        <2."^ 


WASHINGTON 
GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 

1919 


DEPARTMENT    OF    LABOR 

OFFICE  OF  THE  SECRETARY 


DISPOSITION 

OF  THE 

PUBLIC  LANDS  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

WITH  PARTICULAR  REFERENCE  TO 

WAGE-EARNING  LABOR 


By  LEIFUR  MAGNUSSON 


WASHINGTON 
GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 

1919 


IRLF 
URL 


PREFATORY  NOTE. 

Department  of  Labor, 
Office  of  the  Secretary, 
Washington,  D.  C,  June  28,  1919. 
This  condensed  account  of  the  pubUc-lahd  policy  of  the  United 
States,  with  particular  reference  to  its  bearing  upon  wage-earning 
labor,  has  been  prepared  as  part  of  a  general  investigation  of  land  as 
an  opportunity  for  workers,  which  was  begun  in  the  autumn  of  1915, 
pursuant  to  general  instructions  from  the  Secretary  of  Labor.  The 
object  of  this  investigation  has  been  to  survey  the  possibilities  in  this 
country  of  obtaining,  for  returned  soldiers  and  other  workers,  per- 
manent and  profitable  employment  through  the  settlement  and 
development  of  our  unused  lands.  The  present  report  is  designed  to 
give,  in  brief  space,  some  historical  backgi'ound  of  the  questions  in- 
volved, and  to  provide  a  better  understanding  of  the  problem  of 
developing  (or  extending)  public-land  policies  to  meet  the  needs  of 
American  wage  earners. 

Another  publication  being  issued  by  the  Department  of  Labor  at 
this  time,  as  part  of  the  above  investigation,  is  a  report  by  Mr. 
Benton  MacKaye  on  "Employment  and  Natural  Resources."  This 
presents  an  introduction  to  the  general  subject  of  utilizing,  as  an  op- 
portunity for  labor,  the  land  and  resources  of  the  United  States,  and 
takes  up  in  some  detail  the  use  of  agricultural  and  of  forest  areas. 

W.  B.  Wilson, 
Secretary  of  Labor. 

(3) 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Arciiive 

in  2008  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/dispositionofpubOOmagn 


CONTENTS. 

Page. 

Introductory 7 

Land  policies  of  the  American  colonies 8 

Periods  in  the  history  of  American  laud  policy 8 

Sales  by  contract 9 

Credit  system 10 

Sales  to  suit  purchasers 10 

Preemption  system 11 

Land-grants  period 11 

Homestead  period H 

Reform  period 20 

Conservation  and  reclamation  period 22 

Disposition  of  the  public  lauds 24 

(5) 


DISPOSITION  OF  THE  PUBLIC  LANDS  OF  THE  UNITED 
STATES  WITH  PARTICULAR  REFERENCE  TO  WAGE- 
EARNING  LABOR. 


INTRODUCTORY. 

The  public  domain  has  at  one  time  or  another  covered  three-fourths 
of  continental  United  States,  or  all  of  the  territory  outside  of  the  13 
original  States,  Kentucky,  Tennessee,  and  Texas.  The  area  of 
this  territory  is  1,442,200,000  acres.  In  addition,  the  pul)lic  domain 
iiichuU^d,  when  Alaska  was  purchased  in  1867,  the  whole  of  that 
Territory — 378,000,000  acres.  The  public  domain  developed  by  a 
process  of  gradual  accession,  having  its  origin  in  concessions  made 
by  the  States  of  the  early  Confederation.  It  was  then  extended  by 
the  Louisiana  Purchase  in  1803,  the  Florida  Concession  in  1819, 
Oregon  Territory  in  1846,  the  Mexican  Purchases  and  Cessions 
made  between  1848  and  1853,  and  the  Alaskan  Purchase  of  1867. 
No  public  land  over  which  the  Federal  Government  has  proprietary 
jurisdiction  was  acquired  with  the  annexation  of  the  Philippines,  the 
Canal  Zone,  and  the  lesser  islands  of  the  Pacific,  and  the  purchase 
of  the  Virgin  Islands.  There  is  national  park  land  in  Hawaii  and  in 
Porto  Rico  certain  Spanish  Crown  lands  were  made  into  a  national 
forest. 

When  the  Confederation  was  organized  in  1781,  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment did  not  own  or  control  any  land;  all  the  land  was  claimed 
by  various  States.  The  conflicting  land  claims  of  the  different  States 
had  been  a  persistent  source  of  dispute  among  them,  and  very 
largely  in  order  to  secure  an  amicable  adjustment  of  these  disputes 
the  government  of  the  Confederation  succeeded  in  having  the  States 
cede  their  lands  to  the  Federal  Government.  On  March  1,  1784, 
Virginia  relinquished  its  claims  in  the  region  north  of  the  Ohio  River; 
cessions  from  New  York,  Massachusetts,  and  Connecticut  in  1785  and 
1786  gave  complete  title  to  the  territory  of  what  became  known  as 
the  "sixth  northwest  State."  South  Carolina  made  a  cession  of  land 
in  1787,  North  Carolina  in  1790,  and  Georgia  in  1802.  Out  of  these 
were  created  the  States  of  Alabama  and  Mississippi.  In  making 
these  cessions  the  States  usually  retained  a  certain  amount  of  land 
for  their  own  use. 

(7) 


LAND  POLICIES  OF  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 

The  settlers  of  the  American  colonies  had  applied  to  the  new 
country  the  practices  of  their  English  ancestors.  In  formulating  its 
general  land  policy  the  Confederation,  in  turn,  followed  closely  the 
practices  of  the  colonial  governments. 

Among  the  purposes  for  which  public  lands  were  set  aside  were 
the  support  of  common  schools,  of  the  ministry,  of  seminaries  and 
colleges,  and  of  public  officials;  the  encouraging  of  the  settle- 
ment of  armed  men  on  exposed  frontiers ;  the  rewarding  of  soldiers 
for  military  service  and  of  other  men  for  noted  public  service; 
and  the  promoting  of  industries,  including  grants  of  land  for  the  estab- 
lishment of  flour  and  lumber  mills,  for  the  erection  of  brickyards, 
and  for  wharves  and  harbors.^  Following  out  these  ideas  and  prac- 
tices, the  Continental  Congress  passed  an  ordinance  May  20,  1785, 
setting  aside  a  part  of  every  township  for  the  maintenance  of  public 
schools — an  idea  which  originated  with  Timothy  Pickering. ^  Subse- 
quently, in  1787,  the  northwest  ordinance,  which  set  up  a  government 
for  the  northwest  territories,  contained  a  similar  provision.  Thus 
there  was  early  established  the  New  England  colonial  policy  of  public 
land  grants  for  both  public  and  private  purposes. 

Our  early  land  policy  naturally  had  little  reference  to  the  needs  of 
wage  labor  as  such.  It  was  governed  mainly  by  considerations  of 
public  finance  and  the  needs  of  agriculture.  There  was  no  recognized 
labor  problem  in  the  United  States  until  1850,  and  it  is  significant 
that  about  that  time  our  public-land  policy  became  a  factor  in  the 
labor  movement.  This  policy  previous  to  1850,  therefore,  had  been 
determined  practically  without  reference  to  the  labor  movement. 
Subsequently,  however,  it  came  to  be  influenced  by  the  growing 
importance  of  labor,  and  it  may  be  said,  as  agreed  to  by  practically 
all  authorities  on  the  subject,  that  at  all  times  the  existence  of  a  vast 
public  domain  in  the  country  served  to  offset  the  evil  effects  of  exces- 
sive industrialization  and  unemployment. 

PERIODS  IN  THE  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LAND  POLICY. 

In  the  development  of  the  land  policy  of  the  Federal  Government, 
certain  wfll  marked,  though  overlapping,  periods  stand  out: 

(1)  1784-1801.  Contract  sales  by  the  Federal  Government  of  large 
areas. 

(2)  1800-1820.  Period  of  credit  sales  in  small  lots. 

(3)  1820-1841.  Period  of  cash  sales,  usually  in  areas  to  suit  pur- 
chasers. 

>  Federal  Land  Grants  to  the  States,  with  Special  Reference  to  Minnesota,  by  M.  N.  Orfleld,  Minneapolis, 
1916,  Part  I,  chapters  1-.5. 
»  Op.  cit.,  p.  37. 


(4)  1841  -1891..  Preemption  system,  or  sale  at  low  prices  to  indi- 
vidual settlers. 

(5)  1841-1871.  Land  grants  period. 

(6)  1862  to  date.  Homestead  period. 

(7)  1880  to  1900.  Period  of  reforms. 

(8)  1901  to  date.  Conservation  and  reclamation  period. 

The  statement  of  these  different  periods  suggests  on  the  surface  a 
lack  of  contiimity  in  the  Government's  land  policy  which  is  some- 
what misleading.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  changes  indicated  in  the 
outhne  had  only  a  minor  effect.  The  more  fundamental  and  essential 
features  of  the  land  policy  of  the  United  States  have  not  altered  very 
greatly.  The  first  important  change  occurred  with  the  inception  of 
the  homestead  idea — free  land  for  the  landless;  the  second  hig 
change  came  with  the  conservation  and  reclamation  period  which 
marks  the  beginning  of  larger  governmental  control  over  the  disposi- 
tion and  development  of  the  land.  Prior  to  the  latter  period  the 
policy  had  been  one  based  on  extreme  individualism  and  without 
regard  to  the  ultimate  disposition  of  the  land  beyond  the  first  taker. 
Although,  therefore,  the  bona  fide  landless  settler  received  the  land 
direct  from  the  Government,  provisions  like  the  commutation  clause 
in  the  homestead  law  facilitated  the  ultimate  disposal  of  the  land  into 
the  hands  of  the  speculator  and  future  monopolist. 

SALES  BY  CONTRACT— 1784-1801. 

It  was  the  policy  of  the  government  of  the  early  Confederation  to 
sell  land  to  secure  revenue  for  paying  off  the  Revolutionary  debt,  as 
well  as  for  meeting  current  expenses.  This  view  of  public  lands  as 
sources  of  future  revenue  is  emphasized  by  the  fact  that  in  1785 
Congress  issued  a  proclamation  forbidding  settlement  on  the  public 
domain.^  The  act  of  1804  was  of  similar  intent,  while  that  of  1807 
gave  power  to  remove  settlors  from  public  land  pending  sale.  The 
ordinance  of  May  20,  1785,  which  established  a  system  of  rectangular 
surveys,  provided  for  unlimited  sales  of  the  public  lands  in  minimum 
amounts  of  640  acres  at  SI  per  acre,  later  reduced  to  66§  cents. 
These  sales  wore  made  at  public  auction  after  advertisement. 

Under  this  system  of  sales  three  important  dispositions  were  made: 

(1)  To  the  Ohio  Co.,  2,000,000  acres  (subsequently  reduced  to  822,900) ; 

(2)  to  Symmes  and  his  associates,  1,000,000  acres  on  the  Ohio  River; 

(3)  to  Pennsylvania,  the  Erie  tract,  now  in  Erie  County,  Pa.,  202,187 
acres.  The  first  and  third  of  these  sales  wore  made  at  66^  cents  ])er 
acre.  The  right  of  preemption  to  settlers,  i.  e.,  the  first  right  of  pur- 
chase to  those  already  on  the  land,  was  inserted  in  the  Syinmes  pur- 
chase, the  land  being  sold  at  $2  per  acre. 

'  Robert  Tudor  Hill:  The  r*ijt)llc  Domain  and  Democracy,  1910,  p.  30.    Donaldson:  The  I'ublic  Domiiin. 
rev.  ed.,  Washington,  1S84,  p.  197. 

124523°— 19 2 


10 

It  can  not  bo  said  that  those  sales  were  a  conspicuous  success, 
either  as  sources  of  revenue  or  as  moans  of  settling  the  domain. 
Subsequently  litigation  as  to  titles  arose  and  Congress  was  forced  to 
pass  a  series  of  relief  acts  for  the  settlers. 

THE  CREDIT  SYSTEM— 1800  1820. 

The  credit  system  for  the  disposition  of  the  public  domain  has  been 
generally  characterized  as  a  failure.'  It  increased  the  number  of 
debtors  to  the  Federal  Government,  and  encouraged  speculation  by 
its  system  of  sale  at  auction.  The  debt  due  by  individuals  to  the 
Government  in  1818  was  about  $17,000,000;  in  the  seven  years 
ending  September  30,  1817,  over  698,000  acres  had  reverted  to  the 
Government,  and  the  reversions  in  1819  alone  were  over  365,000  acres. 
Relief  acts  were  passed  yearly.  In  1820  Congress  discontinued  the 
system  and  made  provision  for  the  liquidation  of  all  debts.  The 
quantity  sold  under  this  method  was  19,399,158  acres. - 

SALES  TO  SUIT  PURCHASERS— 1820-1841. 

Between  the  years  1786  and  1820  the  unit  areas  of  public  land  which 
were  offered  for  sale  to  individuals  and  companies  were  reduced  grad- 
ually from  township  and  eight-section  areas  to  single  sections  (640 
acres),  half  sections  (320  acres),  quarter  sections  (160  acres),  and  half 
quarter  sections  (80  acres). ^  This  reduction  was  intended  to  en- 
courage the  taking  of  small  holdings  and  to  attract  the  individual 
settler.  The  price  was  reduced  from  the  prevailing  one  of  $2  per 
acre  to  $1.25.  The  sales  were  both  public  and  private  and  p a^anent 
was  by  cash.  They  were  consummated  without  special  proclama- 
tion and  proceeded  after  the  fashion  of  ordinary  private  real  estate 
transfers. 

Further  legislation  was  necessary  to  reach  the  actual  settler.  In 
1854,  the  graduation  act  was  passed  for  the  purpose  of  hastening  the 
disposal  of  lands  which  had  been  on  the  market  for  10  years  and 
over.*  This  act  inured  only  to  the  benefit  of  actual  settlers  who 
might  desire  to  increase  their  holdings.  The  price  was  reduced 
gradually  for  each  five-year  period  during  which  any  particular  piece 
of  land  had  been  on  the  market;  the  charge  was  $1  an  acre  for  land 
which  had  been  on  the  market  five  years,  with  further  reductions 
quinquennially  down  to  a  minimum  of  12^  cents  an  acre  for  land 
that  had  been  on  the  market  for  30  years.  The  act  was  repealed  in 
1862.     About  26,000,000  acres  were  disposed  of  under  this  act. 

>C.  F.  Emerick:  The  Credit  System  and  the  Public  Domain,  Nashville,  Tenn.,  1899.    (Publications  of 
the  Vanderbilt  Southern  History  Society,  No.  3.) 
2  Donaldson,  rev.  ed.,  Washington,  1884,  p.  203. 
"Ibid.,  pp.  205,  206. 
«Ibid.,  p.  291. 


11 

THE  PREEMPTION  SYSTEM— 1841-1891. 

Although  the  credit  system  of  public  land  disposal  was  ostensibly 
abolished  in  1S20,  it  was,  for  all  purposes,  continued  in  the  preemption 
s^'stem  which  was  in  realit}'  a  credit  sale  to  private  persons  as  dis- 
tinguished from  a  public  sale  for  cash.  The  first  preemption  act  was  a 
special  law  passed  in  1801  and  originated  as  a  relief  measure  for  settlers 
in  the  above-mentioned  Symmes  purchase,  who  had  found  the  titles  to 
their  lands  valueless.  The  first  general  preemption  law  was  enacted 
May  29,  1830,  but  was  merely  a  temporary  measure.^  The  system 
gave  a  preference  to  existing  settlers  on  the  public  domain  by  enab- 
ling them  to  purchase  land  at  the  price  of  $1.25  an  acre.  Credit  was 
granted  in  the  sale  which  was  by  private  contract  and  not  at  public 
auction.  The  system  early  developed  great  abuses  and  brought 
about  wide  speculation.  It  was  not  abolished  finally  till  1891.  The 
amount  of  public  land  disposed  of  under  the  preemption  act  is  not 
ascertainable,  as  it  was  carried  into  the  general  sales  entries  of  the 
General  Land  Office. 

LAND-GRANTS  PERIOD— 1841-1871. 

Although  the  land-grants  period  in  American  public-land  policy 
may  be  said  to  include  only  the  period  from  1841  to  1871,  it  should 
not  be  understood  that  land  grants  were  unknown  prior  thereto. 
For  in  this  instance  and  in  other  points  of  policy,  as  already  noted,  the 
S3^stem  of  public  land  grants  to  individuals  and  companies  was  known 
and  practiced  by  the  colonial  government.^  The  early  Confedera- 
tion accepted  the  policy  as  a  convenient  means  of  rewarding  Revolu- 
tionary soldiers  for  their  services.  Later  the  Federal  Government 
handed  over  public  lands  to  the  States  for  their  services  in  the  Revo- 
lution, in  return  for  the  furnishing  of  supplies.  Bounties  in  land 
were  provided  by  Congress  to  carry  out  promises  made  to  officers  and 
enlisted  men  in  the  War  of  1812,  and  in  the  Mexican  War.  These 
promises  were  enlarged  in  the  acts  of  1850  and  1S55.  Liberal  pro- 
visions are  contained  in  the  homestead  acts  in  the  interests  of  re- 
tired soldiers  of  the  Civil  War.  In  1842,  1850,  1853,  and  1854, 
donations  were  made  to  individual  settlers  in  Florida,  Oregon, 
Washington,  and  New  Mexico,  aggregating  over  3,000,000  acres. 

Land  grants  have  been  made  to  the  States  since  1 785  for  the  support  of 
the  common  schools  and  higlier  institutions  of  education,  and  for  inter- 
nal improvements.  In  1802  the  policy  of  an  educational  grant  became 
a  fixed  feature  connected  with  the  admission  of  States  to  the  Union. 
At  that  time  Ohio  received  section  16  in  each  township  as  school  land. 

'Shosuke  Sato:  The  Land  Question  In  the  United  States,  Baltimore,  1886,  pp.  137, 146, 11.  (Johns  Hopkins 
University  Studies.) 

'  Cf.  Orficld,  M.  N.,  op.  cit.,  chap.  1.  Hart,  Albert  Bushnell:  Disposition  of  the  Public  Domain.  (Quar- 
terly Journal  of  Economics,  Cambridge,  Harvard  University,  1887,  vol.  1,  pp.  169-183.) 


12 

States  subsequently  admitted  received  varying  amounts  of  land. 
Grants  for  higher  education  also  were  made.  The  system  of  grants 
was  changed  and  much  enlarged  in  1862;  each  State  was  granted,  in 
support  of  special  institutions,  30,000  acres  for  each  Senator  and 
Representative  in  Congress.  Larger  higher-education  grants  were 
made  to  States  admitted  later. 

If  any  of  the  land  granted  to  the  State  is  mineral  in  character,  or  is 
already  included  in  another  valid  group,  or  is  in  a  reservation — forest, 
Indian,  military,  or  other — ^^the  State  may  select  an  equal  area  else- 
where, known  as  indemnity  land.  Usually  indemnity  selections  are 
not  made  at  once  by  the  States,  but  are  selected  as  the  need  for  the 
land  arises.^  Although  the  grant  is  through  the  State,  it  is  usually  to 
some  corporation  which  is  authorized  to  carry  out  the  actual  improve- 
ments. 

Land  grants  to  States  for  internal  improvements  became  an  issue  in 
party  politics.  The  first  aid  for  internal  improvement  was  authorized 
by  the  act  of  1802,  already  cited,  admitting  Ohio  to  the  Union.  One- 
twentieth  of  the  proceeds  of  the  sale  of  public  lands  in  Ohio  was  to 
be  used  for  building  public  roads  within  the  State.  The  first  land 
grant,  made  in  182S,  was  to  the  State  of  Ohio  to  aid  in  the  construc- 
tion of  a  wagon  road.^  Grants  in  the  aid  of  canal  construction  were 
made  to  the  States  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  Michigan,  and  Wisconsin.' 
About  5,000,000  acres  were  thus  parted  with  by  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment. 

Swamp-land  grants  have  been  made  with  the  expectation  that  the 
States  would  drain  the  swamps,  but  in  a  great  many  instances  this 
has  not  been  done.  The  land  office  for  some  years  now  has  recom- 
mended the  cessation  of  swamp-land  grants  for  the  future  on  account 
of  failure  of  the  States  actually  to  employ  the  land  so  as  to  secure  their 
drainage,  and  because  of  confusion  in  claims  and  titles  through  lapse 
of  time.*  No  land  grants  for  internal  improvements  have  been  made 
since  1869.^  It  is  true,  however,  that  land  for  improvement  by  the 
States  is  still  granted  under  the  Carey  Act,  1894,  in  certain  of  the 
arid  land  States. 

The  first  Federal  land  grant  in  aid  of  a  railroad  is  said  to  be  that 
of  1833,  which  authorized  the  State  of  Illinois  ®  to  dispose  of  the  canal 
grant  of  1827  and  to  construct  a  railroad  with  the  proceeds.  The 
State  did  not  take  advantage  of  the  authorization.  In  1835  Congress 
gave  a  company  in  Florida  a  right  of  way  over  the  public  domain,  30 

>  U.  S.  Geological  Survey.  The  Classification  of  the  Public  Lands,  Washington,  1913,  p.  29.  (Bulletin 
No.  537.) 

2  Ibid.,  p.  30. 

3 Donaldson,  rev.  ed.,  1884,  p.  258. 

<  Annual  report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  for  the  fiscal  year  ended  June  30, 1916.  Washington,  1916, 
p.  20;  1918,  p.  60. 

'U.S.  Geological  Survey.  The  Classification  of  the  Public  Lands.  Washington,  1916,  p.  30.  (Bulletin 
No.  537.) 

«  Donaldson,  rev.  ed.,  1884,  p.  261. 


13 

feet  on  each  side  of  its  line,  with  the  use  of  timber  within  300  feet  on 
either  side  of  the  track,  and  10  acres  at  each  terminal.  Railroad  land 
grants  were  now  an  established  practice.  The  first  transcontinental 
railroad  grant  was  made  in  1862.  Tliis  changed  the  policy  of  the 
Government.  Hitherto  it  had  made  its  grants  through  the  States, 
which  acted  in  a  wa}^  as  trustees.  Henceforth  grants  were  made 
directly  to  the  corporations. 

These  grants  usually  included  the  amount  of  land  mimediately 
necessary  for  the  right  of  way,  and  an  additional  subsidy  of  every 
other  section  of  land  in  a  prescribed  area  on  either  side  of  this  right 
of  way.  The  grants  are  described  in  such  general  terms  that  the 
actual  area  is  largely  a  matter  of  rough  estimation.  Rarely  does  the 
amount  actually  granted  accrue  to  the  corporation  affectea,  although 
in  some  instances  the  area  finally  patented  under  the  grant  exceeds 
the  amount  of  the  original  grant.  Of  the  claims  adjusted  and  closed 
by  June  30,  1915,  about  95  per  cent  of  the  area  of  the  grant  had  been 
patented  to  the  beneficiaries.  In  some  instances  the  grants  were 
made  without  conditions,  workmg  forfeiture  under  certain  circum- 
stances; in  other  cases  limitations  of  various  sorts  were  inserted.^  In 
the  California  &  Oregon  Railroad  grant,  recently  under  litigation,  the 
covenant  in  the  grant  to  the  effect  that  the  railroad  must  sell  its  land 
to  settlers  at  not  exceeding  $2.50  an  acre,  was  construed  by  the 
Supreme  Court  as  a  condition  subsequent  which  forfeited  the  lands 
when  not  complied  with.  This  decree  of  the  court  and  the  subsequent 
supplementary  legis-lation  by  Congress  restored  to  the  public  domain 
3,200,000  acres  of  land.^ 

Eight  railroad  grants  direct  to  the  corporations  have  been  made.^ 
Four  of  these,  including  approximately  109,000,000  acres,  were  made 
to  corporations  created  by  Congress  for  the  purpose  of  building  the 
roads  subsidized.  Of  the  four  grants  to  State  corporations,  two  were 
declared  forfeited  by  Congress  in  1874.  The  last  railroad  grant  was 
made  in  1871.^ 

All  the  railroad  grants  were  of  land  free  of  minerals  other  than  coal 
and  iron.  The  justification  for  this  exception  is  said  to  have  been 
the  need  of  the  railroads  for  those  minerals  in  their  construction 
work.  If  the  lands  granted  to  the  railroads  are  found  to  contain 
other  minerals,  or  are  within  reservation,  or  are  aheady  covered  by 
valid  titles,  the  companies  are  permitted  to  make  selection  of  other 
lands  in  lieu  thereof.  This  right  of  selection  the  roads  usually  sell 
in  the  form  of  "scrip"  which  may  be  filed  on  any  vacant  nonmineral 
Government  land. 

>  U.  S.  Geological  Survey.    The  Classification  of  the  Public  Lands.    Washington,  1913,  p.  32.    (Bulletin 
No.  537.) 
»  Report  of  the  Comnli.ssloner  of  the  (Joncrul  Laud  Olllce  for  tlio  fiscal  year  ended  Juue  30,  lyiii,  p.  48. 
» U.  S.  Geological  Survey.    Op.  cit.,  p.  31. 
« Ibid.,  p.  32. 


14 

THE  HOMESTEAD  PERIOD— 1862  TO  DATE. 

The  homestead  movement  in  the  United  States  was  a  by-product 
of  the  labor  movement  of  the  fifties.^  The  "industrial  revolution" 
came  later  to  the  United  States  than  in  Europe;  the  development  of 
machinery  was  slower  in  the  United  States  than  in  Europe  in  effect- 
ing a  displacement  of  labor.  This  was  so,  first,  because  America  was 
primarily  an  agricultural  country  and  therefore  manufacturing,  even 
in  the  handicraft  stage,  was  not  so  highly  developed;  and,  second,  be- 
cause there  was  always  at  hand  the  great  Northwest- — the  frontier 
offering  its  opportunities  for  a  livelihood.  The  influence  of  land  in 
American  economic  history  has  been  a  controlling  one.  ''Unoccu- 
pied land  drank  up  liquid  capital  as  thirstily  as  a  desert,  and  its  call 
for  labor  was  the  primal  command  to  human  effort."  ^ 

The  existence  of  unoccupied  land  acted  as  an  outlet  for  whatever 
pressure  excess  numbers  of  population  might  from  time  to  time  pro- 
duce. The  evil  effects  of  the  financial  panics,  1813,  1837,  1857,  and 
particularly  1873,  were  minimized  by  reason  of  the  uncultivated 
lands  of  the  West  acting  as  a  refuge  to  those  ruined  in  business  or 
thrown  out  of  employment.  Even  in  time  of  ordinary  prosperity 
"  the  attractions  of  independent  life  as  a  landowner  drew  skilled  im- 
migrants away  from  their  traditional  occupations  to  agriculture."^ 
Land,  too,  being  the  predominant  form  of  wealth  in  our  early  history, 
there  came  to  be  associated  with  it  a  social  prestige  which  acted 
adversely  upon  the  progress  of  commercial  and  manufacturing 
pursuits. 

Agriculture,  therefore,  attracted  a  more  abundant  supply  of  labor^ 
"Even  where  they  were  equally  remunerative,  it  was  more  difficult 
in  America  than  in  England  to  divert  men  from  farming  to  industrial 
pursuits."  * 

Immigrant  labor  came  to  this  country  in  colonial  days,  and  during 
and  after  the  Revolutionary  period,  because  of  the  attractions  ol  un- 
limited land  at  a  low  cost,^  it  did  not  come  primarily  as  industrial  or 
handicraft  labor.  Cotton  mill  operators  in  New  England  had  small 
success  in  keeping  immigrant  labor  because  of  its  withdrawal  to  agri- 
culture. They  were  compelled  to  employ  native  skilled  labor,  the 
wages  of  which  were  not  relatively  as  high  as  those  of  unskilled  work- 
ers who  had  access  to  agricultural  pursuits.  It  was  therefore 
cheaper  to  employ  more  skilled  help  than  to  employ  the  relatively 
higher   paid    unskilled    immigrant   labor.     The    proprietors    of    the 

1  Hookstadt,  Carl:  History  and  Analysis  of  the  Homestead  Movement,  1840-1862.    (Author's  unpub- 
lished manuscript.) 

*  Clark,  Victor  S.:  History  of  Manufactures  in  the  United  States,  1607-1860.  Washington,  Carnegie  In- 
stitution of  Washington,  1916,  p.  364. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  155. 
«Ibid.,  p.  155. 

•  Ibid.,  p.  399;  also  Carver,  T.  N.:  International  Phases  of  the  Land  Question,  Annals  of  the  American 
Academy  of  PoUtical  and  Social  Science,  Philadelphia,  1918  (May,  pp.  16-21). 


15 

Beverly  (Mass.)  cotton  mill  in  1791  stated  that  "here  the  demand 
for  labor  is  chiefly  agricultural  and  the  wages  seem  to  be  regulated 
by  it,"  *  a  view  concurred  in  by  other  local  observers.  It  agreed 
also  with  the  views  of  Tench  Coxe,  a  traveler  and  observer  of  eco- 
nomic conditions  both  in  Europe  and  America.^  Thus  wages  of  un- 
skilled labor  in  America  tended  to  approach  more  nearly  those  of 
skilled  labor  in  Europe  because  it  was  always  in  demand  for  the 
harder  work  in  mines  and  furnaces,  and  because  of  its  access  to  cheap 
land  "which  caused  its  remuneration  to  be  measured  by  the  rewards 
and  advantages  of  independent  agriculture."  ^ 

When  industry  and  manufacturing  advanced  and  called  into 
existence  the  labor  movement,  the  land  question  continued  to  affect 
their  relations.  The  manufacturing  interests  of  the  East  generally 
opposed  the  proposals  for  a  free  grant  of  the  public  domain,  but  the 
laboring  interests  made  the  proposal  one  of  the  chief  demands  of 
their  program.*  The  intensity  of  their  demand  grew  as  the  effects 
of  the  introduction  of  labor-saving  machinery  increased,  particularly 
at  the  times  of  the  industrial  ])anics. 

Among  the  early  land  reformers  was  George  Henry  Evans  (1805- 
1856),  a  man  of  English  birth  who  came  to  America  in  1820.  He 
edited  and  published,  about  two  years  after  his  arrival,  the  first 
labor  paper  in  America.  He  was  the  son  of  a  Shaker  elder  active  in 
the  propaganda  of  his  cause. 

Evans's  doctrines  rested  upon  the  ideas  of  the  natural  rights  of 
man  set  forth  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  The  inalienable 
rights  to  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness  were  applied  by 
him  to  the  concrete  problems  of  his  day.  His  principle  was  that  the 
"use  of  the  earth,  a  portion  sufficient  to  live  upon,  is  man's  natural 
right."  ^  Pie  developed  this  doctrine  to  its  extremcst  a])plication  in 
the  course  of  continued  controversy  through  his  own  jiaper  and 
through  the  public  press  of  New  York  City.  (He  worked  frequently 
in  cooperation  with  Horace  Greeley,  of  the  New  York  Tribune.)  "No 
man  ever  had  a  right  to  more  land  than  was  necessary  for  his  sub- 
sistence, or  an  ec^uivalent  portion  with  every  other  man ;  c()nsc([ucntly 
no  man  ever  had  a  right  to  give  or  take  a  mortgage  on  land.  The 
people  have  a  right  to  take  what  belongs  to  them." 

Plis  scheme  of  reform  and  land  settlement  was  worked  out  in  detail, 
and  contained  some  of  the  principles  of  the  "garden  city"  of  to-da3'' 
as  applied  to  rural  life.     It  accepted  the  township  idea  as  the  basis. 

1  Clark,  op.  cit.,  p.  389. 

2  Tench  Coxe:  A  view  of  the  United  States  of  America,  Philadelphia,  1794. 
'Clark,  op.  cit.,  p.  390. 

<Cf.  Documentary  History  of  American  Industrial  Society,  ed.  by  John  R.  Commons  (and  others) 
Clevciand,  Ohio,  1910,  \'ol.  VII,  2HH  et  socj;  Vol.  Vlll,clmp.  1.  Except  when  indicated  this  is  the  source 
of  what  follows  concerning  the  homestead  movement. 

'  Workin^jman's  Advocate,  June  8,  1844.  (Documentary  History  of  American  Industrial  Society, 
vol.  7,  p.  324.) 


16 

In  the  center  of  each  township  was  to  be  a  village,  laid  out  square, 
with  a  park  in  the  center.  The  form  of  government  was  to  be  the 
township  democracy.  Four  great  measures  of  reform  in  the  public 
land  laws  were,  however,  considered  necessary  as  preliminary  to 
the  application  of  his  system:  (1)  The  public  lands  must  be 
given  to  settlers  only;  (2)  the  homestead  must  be  exempt  from 
seizure  for  debt;  (3)  there  must  be  a  limitation  (160  acres)  upon 
the  area  of  land  owned;  (4)  the  homestead  must  not  be  exchanged 
for  money  or  movable  property,  but  only  for  another  homestead. 
Three  central  ideas  underlie  his  proposals:  (a)  Equal  homestead; 
(b)  inalienable  homestead;  (c)  individual  homestead.  Each  of 
these  reforms  would  strike  at  and  redress  certain  evils:  (1)  The 
same  right  and  title  to  ownership,  it  was  argued,  would  prevent 
want, crime,  and  misery;  each  person's  wants,  the  argument  ran,  are 
nearly  equal  and  therefore  each  is  entitled  to  an  equal  share  in  the 
soil  and  the  whole  product  of  his  labor  won  from  the  soil.  (2)  The 
inalienable  homestead  was  declared  essential  because  man's  rights 
not  only  are  equal  but  continue  so  through  life,  a  consideration 
which  made  it  necessary  to  assure  the  continuity  of  possession  of  the 
soil  to  which  all  have  an  equal  right;  it  was,  therefore,  necessary  also 
to  prevent  alienation  of  a  homestead  except  in  exchange  for  another 
homestead.  (3)  The  homestead  must  be  individually  and  not 
collectively  owned,  for  society  is  made  up  of  individuals,  making  it 
self-evident  that  property  must  be  owned  separately  by  individuals. 
The  need  for  free  land  for  bona  fide  settlers,  in  the  minds  of  the 
labor  agitators  and  reformers  of  the  forties,  was  found  in  the  displace- 
ment of  labor  caused  by  the  application  of  machinery  to  manufac- 
turing. They  claimed  that  they  observed  larger  numbers  at  the  sea- 
board than  could  find  continuous  and  profitable  employment — an 
excess  of  labor  supply  over  demand.  To  improve  permanently  the 
conditions  of  labor  under  such  circumstances  they  declared  was  im- 
possible. To  avert  the  effects  of  machinery  was  hopeless;  it  had  not 
been  possible  to  do  so  in  England.     Therefore,  they  argued: 

Our  refuge  is  upon  the  soil,  in  all  its  freshness  and  fertility — our  heritage  is  on  the 
public  domain,  in  all  its  boundless  wealth  and  infinite  variety.  This  heritage  once 
secured  to  us,  the  evil  we  complain  of  will  become  our  greatest  good.  Machinery, 
from  the  formidable  rival,  will  sink  into  the  obedient  instrument  of  our  will — the 
master  shall  become  our  servant — the  tyrant  shall  become  our  slave. 

For,  while  labor  in  Europe  had  no  outlet,  in  the  United  States  there 
was  the  public  domain — boundless,  fertile  soil,  an  element  which  had 
been  allowed  to  lie  dormant  too  long,  with  the  result  "that  labor 
which  ought  to  be  employed  in  calling  forth  the  fruitfulness  of  nature 
is  to  be  found  seeking  employment  in  the  barren  lanes  of  a  city." 

Labor  was  not  the  only  element  in  1840  which  professed  to  see  the 
intimate  connection  between  the  progress  and  economic  prosperity 


17 

of  the  country  and  the  existence  of  an  extensive  piibhc  domain. 
The  socialistic  and  communistic  movements  joined  in  the  appeal 
to  Congress  for  greater  liberality  in  the  distribution  of  the  public 
domain ;  the  abolitionists  favored  it,  though,  of  course,  they  considered 
it  secondary  to  their  own  special  movement.  "The  deliverance  of  the 
slave,"  said  Garrison  in  the  Liberator  (Boston)  of  March  19,  1847, 
''must  necessarily  precede  the  redemption  of  the  land,  however 
desirable  the  latter,  to  prevent  monopoly." 

All  the  various  branches  of  the  labor  movement  joined  in  an 
industrial  congress  in  1846  at  Boston,  a  prelimhiary  convention 
having  been  held  in  October,  1845.  At  this  congress  and  at  sub- 
sequent ones  in  Jmie,  1847  (New  York),  1848  (Philadelphia),  1849 
(Cincinnati),  1850  (Chicago),  1851  (Albany),  1852  (Washington), 
1853  (Wilmington),  1854  (Trenton),  1855  (Cleveland),  and  1856 
(New  York),  the  land  question  was  the  leading  subject  of  discussion. 
Without  repeating  the  arguments  and  resolutions  of  these  con- 
ventions, the  main  result  of  them  was  to  give  greater  publicity  to  the 
movement  and  to  secure  its  advocacy  by  other  than  labor  influ- 
ences. The  agitation  succeeded,  indeed,  in  ultimately  making  the 
matter  a  political  issue.  The  Free  Soil  Party  accepted  it  as  an  issue 
in  1852,  and  the  Republican  Party  at  its  first  convention  in  1856. 
Horace  Greeley  in  1845  or  earlier  took  it  up  in  the  New  York 
Tribune.  Representative  Andrew  Johnson,  of  Tennessee,  who 
subsequently  became  President,  and  who  is  said  to  have  represented 
the  interests  of  the  "poor  white,"  introduced  a  bill  in  Congress  in 
1846  accepting  the  principle  of  a  free  homestead,  limited  in  size, 
for  landless  bona  fide  settlers  who  were  heads  of  families.  Even 
earlier,  in  1832,  Andrew  Jackson  in  a  message  to  Congress  had  ex- 
pressed his  views  in  favor  of  abandoning  the  sale  of  Government 
land  for  the  purpose  of  securing  revenue  and  instead  offering  it  for 
sale  "  to  settlers  in  limited  parcels  at  a  price  barely  sufficient  to 
reimburse  to  the  United  States  the  expense  of  the  ])rese]it  system," 
including  expenses  for  the  administration  of  Indian  lands. 

Earlier,  however,  than  this  proposal  of  Jackson's  was  the  sug- 
gestion of  Senator  Benton,  of  Missouri,  who  in  1824  introduced  his 
graduation  bill,  recognizing  the  j)roi)riety  of  granting  free  land  to 
actual  settlers.' 

In  1839  Daniel  Webster,  in  discussing  a  graduation  bill  providing 
for  a  gradual  reduction  in  the  price  of  land  accordijig  to  the  time 
it  had  l)een  on  the  market,  came  out  clearly  for  the  homestead 
princi])le: 

It  would  have  been  a  wise  policy  of  Governmout  from  the  first  to  make  donation 
of  a  half  or  whole  quarter  to  every  actual  settler,  the  head  of  a  family,  upon  condition 
of  habitation  and  cultivation. 

1  Kighteentb  Congreiis,  1st  sess.,  vol.  1,  p.  583. 


18 

The  National  Reformers'  Party,  that  of  George  H.  Evans,  organized 
in  1844,  was  the  first  concerted  movement  for  homestead  legislation. 
This  party  was  split,  however,  in  1848  by  the  organization  of  the  Free 
Soil  Democracy.  One  section  of  it  went  to  the  Free  Soil  Democracy; 
the  other  section  of  it  went  over  to  the  abolitionists.  This  latter 
party,  known  as  the  Abolitionists'  or  Liberty  Party,  made  free  land 
to  actual  settlers  a  part  of  its  platform  in  1848.  In  1852  the  P'ree 
Soil  Democracy,  now  in  control  of  the  land  reformers,  or  followers 
of  Evans,  gave  the  homestead  movement  concrete  expression  in  its 
party  platform,  adopted  at  the  Pittsburgh  convention  in  August  of 
that  year.     The  plank  in  the  platform  ran  thus: 

*  *  *  The  public  lands  of  the  United  States  belong  to  the  people,  and  should 
not  be  sold  to  individuals,  nor  granted  to  corporations,  but  should  be  held  as  a  sacred 
trust  for  the  benefit  of  the  people,  and  should  be  granted  in  limited  quantities,  free 
of  cost,  to  landless  settlers.' 

Numerous  bills  were  introduced  in  Congress  between  1852  and 
1862.  In  the  course  of  the  debates  characteristic  phrases  cropped 
out:  ''Vote  yourself  a  home,"  "loafers  of  the  city,"  "vagrants  to 
perpetuate  their  crime,"  "laborers  suffer,"  "too  much  competition," 
"leave  to  toil,"  "lands  are  the  balance  wheel  that  regulates  the 
labor  of  our  country."  These  came  from  the  advocates  of  the  move- 
ment representing  the  eastern  wage  earners.  The  representatives  of 
the  southern  poor  whites  saw  in  the  measure  a  relief  from  their  poverty 
and  from  their  subjection  to  landlordism  under  which  from  one- 
third  to  one-half  of  their  labor  was  taken  as  rent. 

Eastern  manufacturing  interests  characterized  the  proposal  as  a 
charity,  a  means  to  live  without  working,  contrary  to  the  principle  of 
the  recognition  and  security  of  individual  property  and  a  way  to 
enhance  the  price  of  labor  and  therefore  the  cost  of  manufacturing. 
They  conceded,  however,  that  the  land  system  "controls  the  wages 
of  labor." 

The  slave  owners  in  1852  characterized  the  proposition  as  class 
legislation  in  behalf  of  a  small  class  to  the  exclusion  of  the  rest,  an 
effort  to  array  the  poor  laborer  against  the  capitalist. 

Western  pioneers  and  lumbermen  supported  the  measure,  claiming 
it  would  encourage  the  formation  of  a  hardy  middle  pioneering  class 
and  open  up  the  resources  of  the  West,  particularly  the  lumber  areas, 
while  the  farmers  of  the  Mid  West  already  in  the  field  saw  in  it  the 
effect  of  depressing  the  value  of  their  property  by  reducing  the  prices 
of  agricultural  products  through  means  of  increased  production. 
They  saw  in  it  the  destruction  of  the  farmer's  home  market  through 
limitation  of  the  demand  for  his  products,  i.  e..  reducing  the  number 
of  his  consumers  to  the  extent  that  they  themselves  might  take  up 
free  land.     They  pointed  out  also  its  tendency  to  scatter  the  farmers 

'  Donaldson,  rev.  ed.,  1884,  p.  332. 


19 

over  the  country,  and  thus  make  for  less  efficient  methods  of  culti- 
vation. 

In  1856  support  of  the  measure  was  strengthened  by  its  acceptance 
by  the  Republican  Party,  organized  that  year.  The  "Father  of  the 
Republican  Party,"  the  Hon.  Galusha  A.  Grow,  of  Penns3dvania,  had 
championed  the  measure  before  Congress  in  1S52,  pleading  the  natural 
rights  of  man  to  a  portion  of  the  soil,  and  holding  it  to  be  the  true 
function  of  government  to  aid  the  weak  against  the  strong  in  the 
unequal  struggle  between  capital  and  labor. 

For  if  a  mau  has  a  right  on  earth,  he  has  a  right  to  land  enough  to  rear  a  habitation 
on.  If  he  has  a  right  to  live,  he  has  a  right  to  the  free  use  of  whatever  nature  has 
provided  for  his  sustenance — air  to  breathe,  water  to  drink,  and  land  enough  to  culti- 
vate for  lus  subsistence.  For  these  are  the  necessary  and  indispensable  means  for 
the  enjoyment  of  his  inalienable  rights,  of  "life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness." 
The  struggle  between  capital  and  labor  is  an  unequal  one  at  best.  It  is  a  struggle 
between  the  bones  and  sinews  of  men  and  dollars  and  cents,  and  in  that  struggle  it 
needs  no  prophet's  ken  to  foretell  the  issue.  And  in  that  struggle  is  it  for  this  Govern- 
ment to  stretch  forth  its  arm  to  aid  the  strong  against  the  weak?  Shall  it  continue 
by  its  legislation  to  elevate  and  enrich  idleness  on  the  wail  and  the  woe  of  industry? 

In  1851  a  homestead  l^ill  had  reached  the  floor  of  Congress,  intro- 
duced by  Representative  Andrew  Johnson,  of  Tennessee.  A  similar 
bill  was  introduced  in  1853;  another  in  February,  1860.  In  April, 
1860,  a  homestead  measure  was  passed  by  both  Houses  of  Congress, 
but  was  vetoed  by  President  Buchanan  on  the  ground  of  uncon- 
stitutionality.    Among  other  things  he  said: 

This  bill  will  open  one  vast  field  for  speculation.  Men  will  not  pay  $1.25  for  lands 
when  [as  pro\dded  in  the  bill]  they  can  purchase  them  for  one-fifth  of  that  price. 
Large  numbers  of  actual  settlers  will  be  carried  out  by  capitalists  upon  agreements 
to  give  them  half  the  land  for  the  improvements  on  the  other  half.  This  can  not  be 
avoided.  Secret  agreements  of  this  kind  will  be  numerous.  In  the  entry  of  graduated 
lands  the  experience  of  the  land  office  justifies  this  objection. 

By  the  time  the  next  session  of  Congress  met,  the  South  had 
seceded  and  Congress  was  able  to  jiass  the  bill,  which  was  signed 
by  President  Lincoln,  May  20,  1862.' 

But  the  homestead  law  of  1862  was  not  the  legislation  dreamed  of 
and  advocated  by  Evans  and  liis  land  reformers.  It  accepted  in 
fact  none  of  his  tliree  cardinal  ideas:  (1)  Land  limitation,  (2)  inaliena- 
bility, (3)  reservation  for  actual  settlers  only.  Failure  to  embody 
these  i)rincij)les  has  made  possible  the  accumulation  of  large  areas 
in  few  hands.  The  (consequence  has  been  the  growth  of  land  monopoly 
and  of  an  extensive  tenant  class  on  the  former  public  domain.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  as  finally  enacted  the  liomestead  law  became  not 
primarily  a  measure  to  elevate  the  condition  of  labor  in  the  East 
by  reducing  its  numbers  by  removal  to  the  West,  but  an  instrument 
for  the  rapid  exploitation  of  western  resources.     The  western  desire 

'  Donaldson,  rev.  ed.,  1884,  p.  344. 


20 

for  rapid  development  controlled  the  final  form  of  the  legislation  and 
the  labor  inteiests  of  the  East  lost  in  the  struggle. 

The  passage  of  the  homestead  act  naturally  marked  the  beginning 
of  a  period  of  rapid  disposal  of  the  public  domain.  The  legislation 
made  no  distinction  between  different  classes  of  land.  The  same 
laws  and  privileges  of  disposal  were  applied  to  agricultural  lands, 
timber  lands,  grazing  areas,  and  mineral  deposits.  As  if,  however, 
further  to  hasten  the  alienation  of  natural  resources,  coal  lands  were 
made  subject  to  a  special  law  in  1864,  the  first  mineral  act  applicable 
to  the  gold  fields  of  California  was  passed  in  1866,  the  timber-culture 
act  of  1873  made  free  disposal  of  areas  deemed  suitable  for  timber 
raising,  and  the  timber  and  stone  act  in  1878  added  still  more  to 
the  possible  disposable  land  areas.  The  desert-land  act  was  passed  in 
1877,  permitting  irrigation  and  reclamation  work  through  private 
individual  effort.  These  acts,  coupled  with  the  fact  that  the  rail- 
roads were  selling  lands  to  settlers  on  their  vast  grants,  all  made 
for  rapid  alienation  of  the  public  domain.  The  tide  of  immigration, 
too,  was  setting  in,  and  an  eager  population  was  at  hand  to  seize  the 
opportunities  offered.  The  result  has  been  that  the  public  domain, 
instead  of  lasting  700  years,  as  forecast  by  Andrew  Jackson,  was 
practically  exhausted  by  1890.     After  that  began  the  agitation  for 

reform. 

REFORM  PERIOD— 1880-1900. 

Under  the  authority  of  the  various  acts  noted,  it  was  possible  for 
a  citizen  of  the  United  States  to  acquire  in  his  own  name  1,120  acres 
of  Government  land' — 160  acres  under  the  homestead  law,  160  acres 
by  preemption,  160  acres  under  the  timber  culture  law,  and  640 
acres  under  the  desert  land  law.  It  was  possible,  also,  to  secure 
under  various  other  acts  large  quantities  of  timber,  coal,  and  mineral 
lands.  This  state  of  affairs  was,  however,  changed  in  1890  so  that 
the  maximum  which  could  be  taken  by  any  individual  under  all 
laws  was  i^educed  to  320  acres. 

The  period  of  reform  began  with  the  appointment  of  a  commis- 
sion, in  1879,^  the  report  of  which,  in  1880,  made  several  recom- 
mendations for  changes  in  the  policy  of  public-land  disposal.  The 
commission  prepared  a  bill  which  was  practically  a  public-land  code 
for  the  United  States.  This  recommended,  among  others,  the  fol- 
lowing changes:  (1)  Classification  of  the  lands  as  agricultural, 
grazing,  timber,  and  mineral,  with  a  view  to  the  application  of 
different  legislation  to  each  class;  (2)  repeal  of  preemption  rights,  or 

1  Treat,  Payson  J.:  Public  Lands  and  Public  Land  Policy.  (In  Cyclopedia  of  American  Government, 
New  York  and  London,  1914,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  95.) 

2  The  Public  Land  Commission,  1879.  Preliminary  report,  with  testimony.  Washington,  1880.  As 
part  of  this  commission's  report  were  two  volumes  of  compilations  of  the  land  laws,  and  a  third  volume  on 
The  PublicDomain,  its  History  with  Statistics,  by  Thomas  Donaldson,  of  the  commission.  Three  editions 
of  the  last  appeared,  the  latest  in  1884.  One  of  the  most  interesting  books  on  the  western  lands,  in  which 
the  need  of  land  classification  is  recognized,  is  Maj.  J.  W.  Powell's  Report  on  the  Arid  Region  of  the  United 
States,  187S. 


21 

the  squatter's  privilege  of  first  right  to  purchase;  (3)  disposal  of 
western  lands  tlirough  the  homestead  law  exclusively;  (4)  reduction 
of  residence  requirement  on  homesteads  from  five  to  three  5^ears; 
(5)  withdrawal  of  right  of  commutation,  or  right  to  buy  homestead 
after  14  months'  residence — a  potent  source  of  speculation  and 
monopoly;  (6)  sale  of  grazing  land  at  a  low  price;  (7)  sale  of  timber 
apart  from  surface. 

Some  of  these  reforms  and  other  changes  proposed  by  later  com- 
missions have  since  been  accepted,  instances  being  the  repeal  of  the 
preemption  law,  the  repeal  of  the  timber-culture  act,  the  classifica- 
tion of  the  public  lands,'  the  reduction  of  the  homesteading  period 
to  three  years,  the  sale  of  timber  apart  from  the  land  (on  national 
forests),  repeal  of  the  system  of  private  land  sales  and  of  public  sale 
(except  in  special  cases),  and  the  authorization  of  the  creation  of 
national  forests  and  other  reservations. 

Other  commissions  have  investigated  and  proposed  reforms — the 
Public  Lands  Commission  of  1903  (which  reported  in  1905),'  the 
National  Waterways  Commission  of  1907,^  and  the  National  Conser- 
vation Commission  of  1909/  The  Public  Lands  Commission  of  1903 
called  attention  to  our  system  of  anticiuated  land  laws  in  the  follow- 
ing terms: 

The  information  obtained  by  the  commission,  through  the  conferences  in  the  West 
and  the  hearings  in  Washington,  discloses  a  prevailing  opinion  that  the  present  land 
laws  do  not  fit  the  conditions  of  the  remaining  public  lands.  Most  of  these  laws  and 
the  departmental  practices  wliich  have  grown  up  under  them  were  framed  to  suit 
the  lands  of  the  humid  region.  The  public  lands  which  now  remain  are  chiefly  arid 
in  character.  Hence  these  laws  and  practices  are  no  longer  suited  for  the  most  eco- 
nomical and  effective  disposal  of  lands  to  actual  settlers.     (Report,  p.  v.) 

The  Conservation  Commission  of  1909  recommended  the  repeal  of 
the  timber  and  stone  act,  on  the  ground  that  it  had  made  possible 
speculation  in  timber  lands;  limitation  to  160  acres  of  land  taken 
under  the  desert  land  law,  and  repeal  of  commutation  of  such 
land,  with  added  conditions  as  to  residence,  cultivation,  etc.;  restric- 
tions on  the  use  of  the  remaining  pu])lic  domain  for  grazing  purposes, 
involving  abolition  of  free  entry  upon  land  for  grazing;  retirement 
of  public  land  scrip,  fixing  a  reasonable  time  within  which  all  such 
rights  to  public  lands  must  be  located,  after  whicli  redemption  must 
be  in  cash.  (Scrip  is  the  right  to  select  public  lands  generally  in  place 
of  other  lands  granted  but  subsequently  found  to  have  been  taken 
under  valid  title  or  subject  to  reservation  under  special  laws.) 

1  U.  S.  Geological  Survey.  The  Classiflcation  of  the  Public  Lands,  by  George  Otis  Smith  and  others, 
Wa.shington,  1913,  197  pp. 

2  Report  of  the  I'ublic  Land  Commission,  with  appendix,  Washington,  1905,  373  pp.  (.Wth  Cong.,  .3d 
sess.,  S.  Doc.  No.  189.) 

»  Preliminary  Report  of  the  National  Waterways  Commission,  Washington,  1910,  71  pp.  (61st  Cong., 
2d  sess.,  S.  Doc.  No.  301);  also  final  report,  1912,  579  pp.     (62d  Cong.,  2d  sess.,  S.  Doc.  No.  469.) 

<  Report  of  the  National  Conservation  Commission,  February,  1909.  Wasliington,  1909,  3  vols.  (60th 
Cong.,  2d  sess.,  S.  Doc.  No.  676.) 


22 

Keform  of  the  land  laws  has  been  a  slow  process  at  all  times.  "It 
was  the  old  difficulty — ^western  Congressmen  advocated  a  liberal 
land  system,  while  men  from  the  East  were  too  much  interested  in 
other  questions  to  worry  about  the  public  domain."  ^  But  the 
struggle  for  reform  is  still  in  progress  and  continues  to  find  its  expres- 
sion in  what  is  known  as  the  "conservation  movement." 

CONSERVATION  AND  RECLAMATION  PERIOD— 1901  TO  DATE. 

The  conservation  movement  is  an  expression  of  the  effort  to  pre- 
serve for  the  use  both  of  the  present  and  future  generations  the 
natural  resources  of  the  country,  and  to  prevent  their  wasteful  dis- 
position and  monopolization.  The  rapid  disposal  of  the  public 
domain  had  resulted  in  widespread  land  monopoly  and  speculation. 
Attention  has  already  been  called  to  the  rapid  disappearance  of  the 
domain  by  the  great  rush  to  get  land  whenever  new  areas,  or  reserva- 
tions, were  opened  up.^  The  appearance  of  a  large  and  growing  ten- 
ant population;  the  decline  in  the  proportion  of  persons  engaged  in 
agriculture;  the  difficulties  in  getting  an  adequate  agricultural  labor 
supply;  the  mounting  prices  of  practically  all  commodities  of  con- 
sumption, particularly  farm  products;  rapid  increases  in  farm-land 
values — all  these  had  served  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  pop- 
ulation in  this  country  had  been  in  all  likelihood  increasing  more 
rapidly  than  available  natural  resources  could  permit,  provided  pres- 
ent standards  of  consumption  were  to  be  maintained.  The  familiar 
results  of  the  pressure  of  population  upon  natural  resources  were 
emerging — economic  rent,  monopoly  value,  and  unearned  increment.^ 

Statesmen  called  attention  to  the  importance  of  conservation. 
"The  conservation  of  our  natural  resources  and  their  proper  use," 
President  Roosevelt  stated  before  the  conference  of  State  governors 
at  Washington  in  1908,  "  constitutes  the  fundamental  problem  which 
underlies  almost  every  other  problem  of  our  national  life."  Action 
had  been  taken  as  early  as  1891  in  setting  aside  forest  reserves  at  the 
time  when  the  timber-culture  act  was  repealed.  Recognition  was 
thus  given  to  the  fact  that  the  preservation  and  use  of  the  forests  is 
a  long-range  task  and  one  best  suited  to  Government  enterprise. 
Some  155,000,000  acres  have  been  reserved  as  national  forest  land,  of 
which  20,000,000  acres  are  in  Alaska.  The  coal  lands  of  this  Terri- 
tory are  also  to  be  held  permanently  by  the  Government.  Their 
development  has  been  provided  for  by  the  law  of  October  20,  1914, 

1  Treat,  Payson  J.:  Public  Lands  and  Public  Land  Policy.  (In  Cyclopedia  of  American  Government 
New  York  and  London,  1914.  Vol.  IH,  p.  95.) 

2  For  the  4,000  homesteads  to  be  opened  on  the  Rosebud  Indian  Reservation  of  South  Dakota  in  Octo- 
ber, 1908,  there  were  114,769  applicants,  or  nearly  30  for  each  homestead.  (Fred  Dennett,  Commissioner 
of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report  of  the  National  Conservation  Commission,  1909,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  411.) 

'See,  in  this  connection,  an  economist's  discussion  of  population  growth  in  this  country:  E.  Dana 
Durand:  Some  Problems  of  Population  Growth.  (In  American  Statistical  Association  Quarterly  Pub- 
ications,  June,  1916.) 


23 

whereby  a  portion  of  the  coal  lands  may  be  reserved  for  possible  Gov- 
ernment operation,  the  remainder  to  be  handled  nnder  a  leasing  sys- 
tem. Legislation  for  opening  not  only  the  coal  fields  but  the  other 
resources  of  Alaska  was  enacted  the  same  year  by  authorizing  the 
building  of  a  Government  railroad  from  the  southern  coast  into  the 
Yukon  Valley. 

One  very  significant  piece  of  legislation  resulting  from  the  conserva- 
tion movement  was  the  reclamation  law  of  June  17,  1902.  This 
definitely  brought  tlie  Government  into  the  field  of  action  in  a  posi- 
tive and  constructive  fashion.  The  act  gave  force  to  the  contention 
that  the  reclaiming  of  arid  lands  by  irrigation,  the  preservation  of  the 
large  streams  and  sources  of  water  supply,  were  matters  of  large- 
scale  execution,  and  so  vital  to  the  Nation's  economic  strength  as  to 
justify  the  exercise  of  the  taxing  power  to  guarantee  continued  and 
orderly  development.^  Unfortunately,  however,  due  to  the  fact  that 
the  lands  irrigated  were  disposedof  under  the  usual  unrestricted  titles, 
the  advantages  of  large-scale  Government  enterprise  under  this  act 
have  gone  not  so  much  to  the  individual  user  of  the  lands  as  to  those 
who  were  able  to  speculate  in  such  lands. 

Prior  to  1902,  the  interest  and  activity  of  the  Government  in  the 
reclamation  of  uncultivated  land  was  only  indirect.  The  swamp-land 
act  of  1849,  already  mentioned,  granted  the  State  of 'Louisiana  all 
swamp  areas  within  its  borders,  witli  the  provision  that  the  State 
would  reclaim  these  lands  by  the  construction  of  levees  and  drain- 
age canals.  As  early  as  1826  a  similar  grant  had  been  requested  for 
Missouri  and  Illinois  by  the  Senator  from  Missouri.^  In  1850  a  similar 
grant  was  made  to  Arkansas,  and  subsequently  extended  to  other 
States.  The  reasons  assigned  in  justification  of  these  grants  were 
(1)  the  worthless  character  of  the  land  in  question,  (2)  the  increased 
area  rendered  cultivable,  (3)  improvement  in  sanitary  conditions, 
and  (4)  enhancement  in  value  of  adjoining  Government  land.  The 
States,  however,  did  not  make  the  required  improvements,  although 
grants  are  still  being  patented  to  them.  Already  about  65,000,000 
acres  have  been  thus  alienated. 

In  1894  the  Federal  Government  undertook  indirectly,  through 
the  Carey  Act,  to  encourage  the  reclaiming  of  arid  lands.  Under  this 
act  there  were  granted  to  eacli  of  the  Western  or  arid-land  States 
a  million  acres  for  withch'awal  for  the  jmrpose  of  reclamation, 
settlement,  cultivation,  and  sale  to  actual  settlers.  The  land  is  at 
first  temporarily  segregated  and  a  recdamation  project  is  a|)|)i(>ved  by 
the  Federal  Government  when  the  laud  is  found  actually  arid  and  the 
water  supply  sufficient,  and  the  operating  company  with  which  the 

'Cf.  Coman,  Kathcrlnn:  Some  Unsettled  Problems  of  IrrIt,Mlioii;  Anifrlcan  I'.coiiomlc  Review,  Cam- 
bridge, Mass.,  1911  (vol.  I,  pp.  1-19).  Newell,  F.  il.:  Irrigution  Mauagcmenl,  New  York,  Appleton,  191(5, 
X,  306  pp.,  lllns. 

«  Donaldson,  rev.  o<l.,  18*1,  p.  219. 


24 

State  has  contracted  to  have  the  work  of  irrigation  done  is  found 
to  be  financially  responsible.  When  the  irrigation  work  is  completed 
and  the  area  ready  for  settlement,  patent  is  issued  by  the  Federal 
Government  to  the  State  or  its  assigns. 

The  Federal  Government  also  acts  not  through  the  States  but 
directly  thi'ough  irrigation  companies  in  encouraging  the  reclaiming 
of  arid  lands.  By  an  act  passed  in  1891  canal  and  ditch  companies 
were  granted  rights  of  way  for  irrigation  purposes,  for  canals,  ditches 
and  reservoirs  across  public  lands.  These  canals  may  be  used  for 
transportation  purposes,  and  power  development  is  permitted  under 
more  recent  legislation. 

The  reclamation  act  of  1902  brought  the  Government  directl}'-  into 
the  field  of  irrigation.  A  reclamation  fund  was  established  from  the 
sale  and  disposal  of  the  public  lands  in  Arizona,  California,  Colorado, 
Idaho,  Kansas,  Montana,  Nebraska,  Nevada,  New  Mexico,  North 
Dakota,  Oklahoma,  Oregon,  South  Dakota,  Texas  (1906),  Utah, 
Washington,  and  Wyoming.  Five  per  cent  of  the  proceeds  of  these 
sales,  however,  continued  to  go  to  the  States  under  existent  legisla- 
tion, for  educational  purposes.  Other  moneys,  such  as  receipts  from 
the  sale  of  temporary  works  which  may  have  been  put  up,  rent  for 
water  furnished,  fees,  commissions,  etc.,  also  are  made  part  of  the 
fund. 

The  Government  cooperates  to  a  limited  extent  with  State  Carey- 
Act  projects  by  leasing  water  rights  to  corporations.  Irrigation 
works  are  also  built  on  Indian  reservations  for  the  reclamation  of 
Indian  lands. 

Land  irrigated  under  the  reclamation  law  is  disposed  of  under  the 
homestead  act;  the  area  which  is,  therefore,  from  time  to  time  pat- 
ented to  settlers,  is  found  included  in  disposals  under  that  act.  The 
Reclamation  Service  also  gives  the  results  of  operations  under  all 
reclamation  legislation. 

DISPOSITION  OF  THE  PUBLIC  LANDS. 

The  public  lands  in  continental  United  States  have  at  one  time  or 
another  included  an  area  of  1,442,200,320  acres.  The  public  domain 
has  also  included  Alaska,  with  its  378,165,760  acres,  making  in  all  a 
total  of  1,820,366,080.  Of  the  area  of  Alaska,  about  23,900,000  acres, 
or  6.3  per  cent,  has  been  reserved  from  entry. 

Of  the  total  public  domain  in  continental  United  States  (1,442,- 
200,320  acres)  there  had  been  alienated  to  private  ownership  or  to 
the  States  up  to  June  30,  1915,  an  area  of  953,597,523  acres,  or  66 
per  cent,  leaving  488,602,797  acres,  or  34  per  cent.  About  209,000,000 
acres,  or  14.5  per  cent,  was  reserved  from  entry,  principally  in  national 
forests  and  Indian  lands.  The  remaining  279,000,000-odd  acres 
(19.5  per  cent)  was  unappropriated  and  unreserved. 


25 

The  disposition  of  the  public  domain,  by  States,  in  1898  and  in 
1915  is  shown  in  two  tables  which  follow,  both  compiled  from 
records  of  the  General  Land  Office.  The  first  table  shows  the  dispo- 
sition of  the  domain  in  1898  and  is  taken  from  the  Yearbook  of  the 
United  States  Department  of  Agriculture,  1898.  Correction  has  been 
made  in  it,  however,  by  omitting  the  areas  of  other  than  public-land 
States.  Wliile  the  tables  are  comparable,  there  should  be  noted  a 
slight  discrepancy  in  the  last  columns  showing  total  areas  in  each 
State.  The  slight  differences  in  areas  shown  are  due  to  resurveys 
which  have  been  made  since  1898.  The  discrepancies  in  no  way 
affect  the  relative  disposition  of  the  public  domain  at  the  two  dates 
in  question.     The  tables  follow: 


26 


<3        S 


-Cow 

B  c3  3 

p  (,.:; 


c3t3 


c5  G 

q  :3 


o  5  2^o  oSoocooSooSoSooOooooooo 


^COQOOOQ'XQOOOC 


-foooioo-^ooo:' 


iai-^cooicoc^i^oocD.-HCCooo^iCcoeoo:o»cc^iOc/jciot--fo»--( 


■<J<  r-<  r-  (TO  — I  CO  o 
•-H  00  Ol  Oi  00  05  ID 


CO  r*  CO  o  o  -^  c^ 


00  lO  OT  Oi  :£)  CO  00 

CO  -^  lo  oc  «o  ro  fo 


Oi  o  -^  oo  !:D  r-  c^ 

Tf  GO  Tp  CD  lO  00  30 
O  CD  OC'  :0  Tf<  ""f  CD 


CS  O  OS  O  O  CO  CD 
CO       w^  wco 


o^r— oio.— ioo^ojco»oaioooocoocooioo 
O  c^co  cs  r^.oi  occo(NiOco»oxcoc^-ri«r^coo 


CDC^XOiOCaOC-IOO-^C 


t—  C^  (N  O  'X5  C^  t^  C 

Tf  -J*  CO  »o        -^  Ol 


ia>OikOooi.-(t^c^cs--^i— (h-cot-r-oc-*'0 

MOOO»000CT»CD0CiC^CDC0tic^C0»O'^0ir-( 

i»cor-ooc)OfO'^r-r-c^cocs"-D.-(X'COi--i 


Tt^c^icio-— 'Ot--.oO'^oir^aiococ/:oioOf-< 

COCOCSIOCO^OC^^aiGCt^COcDiO-Oi-tOGOX) 
COy3iMOlCOCOC^iOO:(NC^iOCSCSCS^-^«-HCD 


3CDC0O01C0C^00C^iC^OO'*C000'*i0t- 
3  CS  CO '^  CS  ■^  rH  CO    1-1  N  .-H  CS  CS    .-H  CO    r-i 


cDO>COt~-OSTfiOO'-HCO'— '1— iCJO^cDi-H-^iOi— <CSC^"^Or^<— (O 

co»-(00'-HOcoooit--cor~-c^O'-HCDr^"^(0'^»-tcDiC>oc^r- 
^-HC^l-Hoil5»ot^oco^-^^-HO^-HI-Ht^.-H^ooc^^-^t>lajcoI~-^c^^ 


Ol  i-HiO  CD   CO  O 


OOlMOlOOiC^CD'^OiiO 


eoiooco"^»ocoooocs.-H»ooi-ta:c^xcococ^»-HCNccr-c^cD 
^'»}'^ascOi~<^'^ior^-^co*Oi-<csit-^^ooc^-xjt-~co^c^too 

CDOCii-HO--iGOOt--COCDr-CJOiaoaiOC^CNCO*OCOCOOi'-HCO 

cc^t-Toci  cs  ■^r-^r-'"io^G<ro^co'^co'co'^'*i-rx*c^rt^»o^"^'^o'^ic".-M"co'oi''^ 


o  o  05  05  CO  r^-  •■ 


.■^coaiooo-^coF 


C0'-<CDcD0ir>..— iiOOC^iOt^CO-^OcOCOasODC^COOlCOL 


t—  COOOiOi-HCCClCSlN 


3^«tDC^.-<-^C^-»J'C^ 


CDNi-HiOOOCOt^OCTii-H'* 
CS  r-i  O  CO  CO  O  CD  O  00 


1-H  '^  -^ 
1-H  NCD 


O  i-t        CD  0>        COOi-lO 


OCSOOCOOCiOiOrt^CDCR 

•^cDc^r^cO'^cD-rjHr-co'^O 

CS<NCD^iOXQOOOCOOt^'<J' 

cD*"c^  i-raric"orario'r^"<j'"'r-rco^ 

ocr-       'Tfc^r-icot^oor^oooo 

CO        C^CS        OiiOOirj*        o> 

lo*     cD^co*     i-ToT     r-T     -^ 


CO'^i-HOSOlr-lt^Olt^OO'^CD 

0»-tiocDr^rtOOocooo»-i 
ci    *o6ocDoio6coocDi-Hco" 


SOCOcDOt^b-O'-M-HiOCO 
t-00»0»0OCD(Nut'C0O^; 
■^    Oi  CO  O  CS -^  ^ '^  r-i  CO  OJ  ^ 

r-T   lO'ocTcO^t^  iO*'r-rio'".-r   00* 


O  t^c^c^  ^00  : 
CO  O  O  t^  CO  Oi  c 


CO  CO  Q  CO  •— «  lO  CS 

r^  GO  CTt  c^  uD  r--  Tf 

CO  t^  Oi  O  »0  C^  Oi 


N  CO  CT>  -^  O  »0  O 
to  t— CO  -*  I>-  t^  C^ 


s  =^  «'c 


c^c^i^r^o>c^cor-cocDC^.-Htoiocooit---:f 

OcOCOOCSO'-H'fCSt— 00C0C^^tJ-tPph»O 

Oiic^i-H^i-Hi-Htowr>lo^iOGOGOcocow*-^:o 

1-H  t-.CSG0COTpCSU0(N00C0         I- 


ooioxcooioic^-^ 


Soil— iCSCOC^iOQOOticO 
t^COCNOO-^OiCt-cD 


O  »0  LO  O  CO 

CO  »0  C  (N  20    .     _     .      .     -  , 

Ob-ior^cOrP^OiOCOiO":! 


icr^GOooO'^t^r— "^ocscoio 
■-fO-^»o>or^OOoct^-^i-HCO 
-HioiocoiO":iO  xir-oO'^'^j'o 

i-ro'''~rTt«^o'"t^io*  cn'co'co"     a^ 

r^,-.CO"^CN         CO  i-H  Tj*  T-H         -^Ji 


03  p. 


3  rt  "^ 
2Q§ 


2-H^=-i  of-s  g  §|.s.|.|  §:§  £|  S3 


(I*  2   C3 


o  » 


^^^o 


O  o  S 


w.^  .S  3  00 

P  w  B  c3 
■-  Sen  3 


'>;c 


o^ 


27 


►^ "" 

""^S 


o     5 


Sis  « 


;ggggog  = 


!g88? 


50Q  C  CO 


r  lo  GC  t-^  1  ^  — '  r^  ^  GO  Iff  r-^  kC  f^  o  ^ 


•  eooicccoiOL'^c^cciCM'wcs^ri-^t--- 


»ocor-c:xr-c".  —  TT-^t^t^ai  —  —  c^t^>ooc^rri.-7Ci«3;o 


000*OCiC^iMOO'«  —  rCCCCiC  '<r;Ct^c 


».-:  o  —  c^  rc  cc' 


I  »C(N  roC4  ^  t 


--         -     t^  ^OtN  t^I^OOO  CM  OC^-v^  C^CO -^  «  O 


S 
l^ 

i 

1 

r^  —  rj 

—-  to  ^'  <X  tri  cc  N  QC 

Ci<£>C*t^iCi 

TT 

00 

.^ 

«)=D00OlC<3 

— < 

0000  t~(M->r  0  00030 

"if 

9 

o 

CO        CCiOCCMi-tiONCO'VC^'ViO'V        CC^O^COCOi-tC^COC 


OO  TTCvJ  t^^  '^ 


dOscoccio^T"— '0»o«-Hh-.-H 


■  a:  ^  o  re  -—  t-- 


ooosrft^c^'rt.— .i.-?_i^^CMorooo»r)»or-osc<ico»o03 


»OGC  O  < 

•a  o  CO  —^ '—    '  -^ 


iior-CMcocccoeooscoos- 


l-H    -V  CM  .-It 


t^— -OlCfo■veC'Cfi^^•rJ■o^'^OCSCM<r^-^c5^oo^ iCM— 'oo 

r^oC'w^u~0'*'<rc-^occo^^t^O'<rcMCMicoOi-HCOi-^ 
i-T  o  o  ^  cT  ci  CM  -h"  •^'  c:  CD  ^  CO  t^  o  o:r  t-T  I C  o  r-^  c^  o  cm"  r^  r^ 

''TC'lCMC^CO'V'^   C^-^      .-iiOCi'-HOt^OiO— 'C^iOM 
'r^'^cc   ckT       cm     CO   iCCO'-ToiCt^Osco"   1-^ 


CM 


CM  ^    ^ 


c^      ,-,    ^  ^ 


ICVCOCMOOCOOSIOIC^CMC^ 

»-«»occr*CJt--.cO'-'COCMX'— "^ 
OO     *OiO     *o     *     '     '  ^     '' 


lOOCJl-^t^COOCCMCM 
—  —  '^'NOi'TCOOuO 


coo^c^co^cccor^i^r^ooost^mceoi 
,,.    --roccccc^CMic^otcr-r-ocooioeiD 

oico^jji-^TTCMc^oO'Xxr:  ■— ccr^x-^— .^ccx'-cr-ai 

t^cx'^coorTcMuo— Ttccoo'      »ccm  r^oc  co  cm  cm  "<r  ro '^'^ctT 
■^— r-cocoo— *r-ot>--^co       ccci-HX'C:M""Tr-o:oTr       cm 

OCCM^CMC^CM         <—<         CI  O— irj-t^rr         -^dCO--         O 

iOCMCO--r       O 


CO 


CM  — i         i-< 


1-H         iCCM 


l-H  CO 


p 

■n 

r: 

> 

o 

;=1 

X! 

3 

5 

ft 

r/1 

o 

■^j 

jj 

S 

s 

« 

C 

o 

n 

o 

C3 

O 

a 

o 

a 

CMl 

OT) 

a 

•n 

^ 

c 

C 

O 

t-.o 

(fl 

"a 

'c. 

C3^ 

c3  :^ 

M 

u 

c 

G 

a) 

oj: 

xa 

B 

a 

-^ 

G 

3 

^' 

•a 

c 

c/j 

c 

s 

.^ 

g 

Jh 

o 

rt 

rt 

y 

•g 

a 

o 

13 

Hf= 

a 

S 

«  O  in 
rt  fe  O 

o 

i 

28 

Between  June  30,  1915,  and  June  30,  1918,  the  area  alienated  from 
the  pubhc  domain  increased  from  954,000,000  acres  to  about 
1,015,000,000  acres;  the  total  area  remaining  in  United  States  owner- 
ship decreased  from  489,000,000  acres  to  about  427,200,000  acres; 
and  the  area  of  unreserved  and  una])]iropriated  lands  diminished  from 
280,000,000  acres  to  about  222,400,000  acres. 

The  25  States  in  which  public  lands  are  at  present  located  include 
69  per  cent  of  the  total  land  area  of  the  United  States;  there  were  at 
one  time  29  public  land  States,^  but  no  vacant  public  land  is  now 
located  in  the  States  of  Iowa,  Illinois,  Indiana,  and  Ohio.  On  June 
30,  1918,  the  total  vacant  public  land  formed  11.7  per  cent  of 
the  total  land  area  of  the  United  States;  in  1898  it  formed  30.2 
per  cent.  The  area  in  the  25  public-land  States  which  was  reserved 
by  the  Government  (forest,  parks,  Indian  lands  and  withdrawals)  on 
June  30,  1918,  formed  10.8  per  cent  of  the  total  land  area  of  the 
United  States,  while  in  1898  it  formed  7.6  per  cent.  On  June  30, 
1918,  the  Government-owned  land  formed,  therefore,  22.5  per  cent  of 
the  land  area  of  the  whole  United  States,  while  in  1898  it  formed  37.8 
per  cent. 

Into  whose  hands  the  public  lands  have  fallen  is  not  definitely 
known.  Any  attempt  to  balance  the  acreage  of  public  lands  disposed 
of  for  known  purposes  and  under  definite  laws  or  regulations  (together 
with  land  still  in  possession  of  the  Government)  with  the  area  at  one 
time  denominated  as  public  land  will  meet  with  failure.  The  General 
Land  Office  has  never  made  any  attempt  to  make  this  balance;  as  a 
matter  of  fact  it  is  not  in  possession  of  the  necessary  data.  Some 
418,000,000  acres  appear  to  be  unaccounted  for.  This  acreage  in- 
cludes such  areas  as  were  disposed  of  when  the  Government  was 
selling  its  land  at  auction  to  help  pay  the  public  debt  of  the  Revolu- 
tion, also  disposals  made  under  the  early  preemption  acts,  and  other 
dispositions  the  records  of  which  are  completely  lost. 

A  general  statement  of  the  disposition  of  the  public  domain  in 
continental  United  States  on  June  30,  1918,  is  given  in  the  following 
table : 

1  These  States  and  Territories  were:  Alabama,  Arizona,  Arkansas,  California,  Colorado,  Florida,  Idaho, 
Illinois,  Indiana,  Iowa,  Kansas,  Louisiana,  Michigan,  Minnesota,  Mississippi,  Missouri,  Montana,  Nebraska, 
Nevada,  New  Mexico,  North  Dakota,  Ohio,  Oklahoma,  Oregon,  South  Dakota,  Utah,  Washington,  Wis- 
consin, Wyoming. 


29 

Disposition  of  the  public  domain  in  continental   United  States  under  certain  specified 
acts  or  grants  of  Congress,  June  SO,  191S. 

[Source:  Report  of  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office  for  the  fiscal  year  ended  June  30, 1918.] 


Item. 


Area  (acres). 


Per  cent  of 

total  public 

domain. 


Credit  sales  (1800-1820)  o 

Sales  to  suit  purchasers  (1S20-1841)  b 

Homestead  entries  ( 1S6S-191S) 

Desert  land  entries  ( 1S77-191S) 

Timber  culture  entries  ( 1S73-1918) 

Timber  and  stone  entries  (1878-1918) 

Coal  land  entries  ( 1S73-191S) 

Educational  and  internal  improvement  grants  to  States 

Grants  to  States  nf  swamp  and  overflowed  lands  (1849-1918). 

Railroad  grants  (patented) 

Wa^on  road  grants 

National  forests 

National  parks  and  monuments 

Withdrawals  and  reservations  (estimated) 

Indian  lands  (allotted  and  unallotted)' 

Vacant  public  lands  / 

Disposals  unaccounted  for  ? 


19 
26 
178: 
7, 
9, 
13, 

112, 

fV), 

dl23, 

3, 

134, 

e: 
3o: 
7i: 

222 
418 


399,000 
000,000 
342,000 
922,0(X1 
856,000 
446,000 
622, 000 
081,000 
003, 000 
712,000 
242,000 
494,000 
062.000 

oai,  000 

094,000 
448, 000 
477,000 


(■=) 


1.3 

1.8 
12.4 
.6 
.7 
.9 

7.8 

4.5 

8.6 

.2 

9.3 

.4 

2.1 

4.9 

15.4 

29.0 


Total 1,442,200,000 


100.0 


a  Donaldson,  rev.  ed.,  1884,  p.  203. 

6  Ibid.,  p.  291. 

c  Less  than  one-tenth  of  1  per  cent. 

d  An  understatement  by  about  35,000,000  acres,  as  it  includes  only  patented  areas.  The  limits  of  the 
original  grants  show  about  158,294,000  acres  which  will  fall  to  the  railroads  when  all  claims  have  been  ad- 
justed and  patents  issued.  (Statement  showing  land  grants  made  by  Congress.  Compiled  from  records 
of  the  General  Land  Office,  Washington,  1915,  p.  23.) 

f  Annual  report  of  the  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs  for  the  fiscal  year  ended  June  30,  1918,  Wash- 
ington, 1918 

/  This  area  is  subject  to  reduction  to  satisfy  the  remaining  land  grants  to  the  raihoads.  The  area  of 
these  outstanding  grants  is  35,000,000  acres,  but  for  various  reasons  the  roads  will  not  be  able  to  secure 
patents  to  that  amount. 

g  This  area  includes,  among  others,  donations  of  public  lands  in  the  early  history  of  the  country,  and 
disposals  under  the  preemption  system  and  by  various  early  sales. 

The  lands  wliich  the  Government  has  alienated  are  the  best  of  its 
original  domain.  Under  the  homestead  law  were  taken  up  the  rich 
agricultural  alluvial  lands  of  the  central  Mississippi  basin;  under  the 
railroad  grants  were  alienated  many  of  the  rich  lands  of  the  river 
courses  and  of  the  natural  valley  highways  of  the  continent  through 
which  the  railroads  pass. 

Quite  different  is  the  character  of  the  remaining  area  of  the  public 
domain.  No  surveys  have  ever  been  made  to  show  what  proportion 
of  the  public  domain  is  capable  of  agricultural  ])roduction,  how  much 
is  grazing  land,  or  what  proportion  is  desert  land.  An  estimate  made 
by  an  expert  in  the  De])artment  of  Agriculture  in  1898/  when  the 
Government  held  more  than  twice  as  much  public  land  as  atju'esent, 
showed  that  about  12  per  cent  was  arid,  22  per  cent  woodland,  and 
66  per  cent  adaptable  for  grazing.  Since  that  time  the  proportion 
has  changed  so  as  to  increase  relatively  the  amount  of  arid  land  and 
the  wooded  and  forest  tracts.  An  estimate  made  in  1916  on  a  some- 
what different  basis  by  an  expert  at  the  General  Land  Office  was  that 
about  one-fifth  of  the  remaining  public  land  was  worthless,  one-fifth 


>  Yearbook  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture,  1898,  p.  330. 


30 

capable  of  some  degree  of  agriculture,  and  the  remaining  three- 
fifths  semiarid  and  grazing.  More  recent  official  statements  of  the 
Land  Office  describe  the  present  vacant  land  as  principally  arid  and 
grazing. 

For  future  utilization,  therefore,  practically  all  of  the  land  now 
owned  by  the  United  States  outside  of  grazing  land  must  be  irrigated 
to  be  made  of  agricultural  value.  Additional  land  suitable  for  agri- 
culture might,  to  be  sure,  in  small  quantities  come  into  the  possession 
of  the  United  States  through  the  future  forfeiture  of  railroad  grants 
or  by  the  drainage  of  swamp  areas  now  granted  to  States,  the  with- 
drawal of  which  from  State  grants  is  recommended  by  the  Commis- 
sioner of  the  General  Land  Office.  New  methods  of  agriculture,  also, 
such  as  improved  dry  farming,  may  render  productive  what  is  now 
semiarid  or  grazing  land.  For  the  most  part,  however,  the  oppor- 
tunities for  free  land  in  the  United  States  have  passed.  Agriculture 
has  ceased  to  be  an  undertaking  open  to  the  man  without  capital. 
The  problem  which  the  United  States  now  faces  is  to  provide  for  its 
population  opportunities  equivalent  to,  or  better  than,  those  at  one 
time  afforded  by  an  expanding  public  domain.  So  far  as  agriculture 
is  concerned,  the  task  of  the  Government  is  to  secure  for  the  workers  of 
the  country  the  use  of  the  proper  kind  of  farm  land,  to  prepare  and 
equip  such  land  for  use,  to  aid  in  the  organization  of  cooperative 
facilities  and  community  life,  and  to  eliminate  the  causes  of  specu- 
latiou. 

o 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA    000  489  108 


